Racial prejudices in the world of 2e rules

Remove all ads!

The Little People:

Concerning halfings, dwarves, and gnomes, an annoying little restriction comes in whereby any Size S (small) creature cannot use Large weapons, and must wield Medium weapons with two hands. This eliminates the possibilities of equipping a sword in the off-hand (or even dual-wielding) unless they use a Small weapon, severely limiting their weapon choices.


HALFLINGS (the other white thief)

Halflings as a race are underused because of the lack of powergaming options:

1. Thief with 19 DEX
2. (Ummmmm... *shrug*)

The only available classes for a halfling are Fighter, Cleric, Thief, & F/T.

Of course the Fighter & F/T are useless for powergaming, because of the fact that not only are you penalized a point of strength (making it impossible to start with 18), you also can't even roll for exceptional strength if you manage to get it up to 18! The cleric class is also realtively worthless for powergaming because of the racial restriction that says that if you have 18 WIS you can't be a halfling, which means no 7th level spells!

So what you're stuck with is a halfling uber-thief with 19 DEX (and tons of racial bonuses) for the only powergaming option! To add insult to injury, halflings as a race are thought of as thieves, so even if you don't powergame an uber-thief, you still have to deal with the stigma.

The one last point that sticks in my craw is the 10 minimum CON (the second highest requirement of any score for any race) that makes it just that much harder to get a halfling character. I'd say halflings got majorly short-changed. (No pun intended.)


DWARVES (bearded, boisterous, boozing bashers)

While dwarves get some pretty good racial bonuses (poison save, magic save, racial enmity, and underground skills), they take not one but two hits stat-wise. The most obvious is Charisma, where not only do dwarves take a one-point penalty as a racial modifier, but it's taken from a CHA score that has to be at most 17 in the first place, leaving them with a max of 16. No other race has such a low max in any score.

There is also the matter of the max 17 DEX, which severely hurts the possibility of powergaming any dwarven Thieves or F/Ts.

Also hurting the possibility of dwarven characters is the 11 CON minimum (before adjustment), which is the highest of all racial ability requirements.

All of this makes the dwarf something of a one-note race. Good dwarven characters would be Fighters, Clerics, or F/Cs. Both fighters and clerics are militant types (in their own fashions), so the dwarf comes off as a loud, boisterous race. Even with the small stat windows though, a dwarf character (properly played) can rise above the stereotype that plagues his/her race.


GNOMES

The whole of the gnomish race seems to be built off of the idea of multi-classing the Illusionist. Gnomes get a bonus to Intelligence (the only race that does) to allow them to get 19 INT and accumulate every spell they're allowed (as specialists) into their spellbook. Simultaneously, they are discouraged from turning to divine magic by a penalty to Wisdom, making it impossible for gnomish Clerics to get 7th level spells.

But even the gnomish Illusionist is a little bit of a let-down. Can you imagine a high-level wizard unable to use staves just because they're too big? It's just so senseless.

 

Yes this is true. But as a DM you are allowed to modify the rules to your game world to compensate for small miscues in the handbook. What I like about D&D is that it all depends upon the DM and what he see fit for his campagin. If he doesn't like something he alters it so it works for him or her. I personally never paid attention to the stupid rules. What I figured is each race had their own weapons designed for them and all players were allowed to select weapons even appropriate for their class, no race restriction.

As for the ability minimums I really didn't pay attention to those rules. As long as my players explained why their stats were lower or higher than their brethren than I would allow stats above or below racial minimums.

Here is my favorite character that played in one of my campigans.

He was a halfing ranger with a Dex of 19 and a Str of 12. I allowed this since my player convinced me that his Halfing ranger str was low because he spent his time in stealth and using his skills with bows.

I like allowing different race and class combos. It makes the gaming world fun. Why couldn't a halfing be a ranger or paladin or even mage?

Has anyone tried a Halfing mage before? You need to be creative and have fun and that what playing D&D is all about.

 

You could try the new version where, you know - a character can take any class regardless of race.

 

That is the way I play. I never really liked how races where restricted to selected class. I also allowed multi-class Humans. You actually received 1/2 the normal XP and than had to divide that by 2 for both classes. The goodness about that was humans could achieve higher than specialized for weapons. Man do I miss being a DM.

 

I think the powergaming aspects only come out if you do indeed powergame, which is much harder to do in p&p D&D. I know in my gaming groups, we had specific ways to roll stats, and there was a guy who always fudged his stats (I actually caught him changing his stats).

Anyway, it's up to the group or DM to take care of these guys. My DM would just make things very difficult for the life of this players one-dimensional super characters.

I always concentrated on roleplaying p&p D&D (and other RPGs). IMO, cRPGs are inherently more about the powergaming.

Anyway, I've strayed far off-topic here. Sure, the little folk are restricted in their stats. Halfings can't get 18 STR. Dwarves can't get a really high CHA or an 18 DEX. Gnomes are smart but not wise.

So what, I say. They all have great saving throw bonuses to keep these knee-biters alive longer, as well as other bonuses. Halflings get GREAT thieving skill bonuses, and are better slingers than anybody. Dwarves have an affinity with stonework, and get great bonuses underground. Gnomes can talk with badgers or something (okay, that kinda sucks).

Maybe they can't get the highest stats possible, but the chances of actually getting an 18 are so remote anyway, that if this game is played the way it's supposed to be, it would so rarely matter nobody would notice.

On a side note: this is why I'd love to see some contest where people play games like BG with nerfed stats. I'd love to see how challenging this game is for everybody if they don't have super-hero stats flying around!

 

The stats are actually the least of the three evils mentioned (at least in PnP). My biggest complaint is the one mentioned first and last: weapons. The battle axe, a weapon stereotypically dwarven, is a medium-sized weapon, which means it's better used by a human who can equip a shield with it than a dwarf who has to hold it in two hands. And a gnomish illusionist unable to use staves at all because they're large-size, when they're typically the most powerful wizardly items (Staff of the Magi *drool*), is just utterly senseless.

Then there are the limits to the number of classes they can be.
Halflings - 3 + 1 multi
Dwarves - 3 + 2 multi
Gnomes - 4 + 6 multi
Elves - 8 + 4 multi
Half-elves - 11 + 12 multi
Humans - 14 + >100 dual

Though these numbers don't take into account things added by supplements like the Wild Mage (though it's tall-only) from the Tome of Magic (and I positively adore the CBH for adding demi-human bards), and you have to take into account that it's hard to get dual-class capable stats, it certainly paints a disturbing picture. How much can you do with only 4 or 5 class choices, especially when one or two are just mixes of the other three?

The stat restrictions only exacerbate this problem, effectively pushing you toward only a couple out of the 4 or 5. And then there's the temptation of 19 INT for the gnomes, making a gnome that isn't an illusionist variant a less attractive option. That kind of passive railroading just gets under my skin.

Ah, the sling, the principal missile weapon of the cleric, when halflings have a WIS restriction. Even a halfling thief is better off using a short bow, so those bonuses become almost an either-or. Halflings get screwed the worst out of all of them. Dwarves at least have options for fighter or cleric, and gnomes can multi Illusionist with whatever they want, but halflings... Halfling fighters can't get exceptional strength, halfling clerics can't get 7th level spells. That leaves only one option: thief. Even the fighter/thief is just a thief who's better at combat. And tell me WHY halflings can't be fighter/clerics? Which, BTW, makes them the only race unable to get even demi-paladins (added by the CPalH as a F/C 'kit'), and which also seems blatantly unfair to Mazzy.

Ooh, "detect slope". And "determine depth" really rocks. How many times have you actually used that stuff? More to the point, when have you actually gotten crucial information out of it? Underground adventures were never that common when I played.

The main problem is that dwarves are thought of only two ways. Namely, Kagain/Korgan & Yeslick. You see a dwarf, you expect him to be wearing heavy armor, and wielding one of three weapon choices: battle axe in two hands (with NO bonus), short sword & shield (for the defensive fighter), or warhammer in two hands (NO bonus, and pretty crappy damage). The only dwarven thief I've EVER seen was one I played myself just to try to get my fellow players' minds out of that rut. And guess what? He sucked. Between the DEX restriction and the crappy bonuses & penalties they get, dwarves make the worst thieves of any of the six core races.

Hmm, I hadn't noticed that before, but it does say they can take something along the lines of "burrowing animals" for a language. Not that that's actually worth, well, anything. Of course, gnomes don't need such bonuses as much as halflings or dwarves do, being the only small race to have access to arcane spells (and plenty of multi options).

 

Fel, you played with powergamers.

The DEX restriction? C'mon man.

BTW, I've had a ton of fun with characters breaking stereotypes. I've had Gnome barbarians and dwarven thieves, and they were great! p&p isn't about powergaming. If it is, you're in the wrong group.

BTW, any DM not allowing Dwarves to use axes or hammers in one hand is crazy. At least 3e classifies them as Medium sized.

 

Again, the DEX restriction is not just one point. It's not a matter of a 17 versus an 18. I got lucky to get a 16 in addition to the 18 I rolled (that I had to put in CON because that was the only one that would fit), but others might not get so lucky. And remember that every point of DEX means about 5% in up to five different thief skills. My dwarf ended up effectively two levels behind the skills he would have had as a half-elf with the same rolls. Now imagine a 2nd level fighter in a 4th level party...dead meat.

Now don't get me wrong, I had a bit of fun with the character once I settled into it. But when it came to combat or using my thief skills...that just killed the fun, because he couldn't do anything. Stereotypes usually get started for a reason.

...Do you have any concept of the size of those weapons? A hand axe, yeah, that should be allowable as one-handed despite its listed medium size (I think that may be a typo anyway). But a battle axe or warhammer wielded well in one hand is a very dubious proposal for someone only 4 feet tall. The problem still remains that they get a limited choice of weapons, most of which do less damage.

To say nothing of armor troubles. What you buy at the beginning is just to start with; you've got to find better armor, and most suits are not made for the little guys. Sure, your DM can fudge rolls, but I still don't like the effective discrimination.

 

I still prefer 2e rules to 3e and beyond ...

 

As do I. But let me be clear: this is not a 2e VS 3e thread. We've got plenty of those already. This is about the raw deal (or not) that the little folk get in 2e, nothing more.

 

The DM has control of their realm. They can alter anything in the game. The rules that were provided by TSR are starting points, not final say. This is why I like RPGs and being a GM. Given that you control the world, the players in the world and anything else. So as far as your complaint, I would toss it out and if you sat down with my group, explained why your character has a 18 in Dex, I would give it to you. No problem as long as you can give a very good detailed story. Here is an example for a havinga Dwarf with a 18 Dex.

My character grew up in a typical dwarven clan, but at a young at the clan was invaded and I had to defend for myself or stay hidden for a few weeks. After the very fierce battle I flew the burning coup to the topside and there I started my tavels. In fact I was young, very young, 5 years in human years. My travels took me into a forest where I was ambushed by a pack of wolves, etc... This group of Halfings saved me and brought me in. I was raised by this nice lady and played with all of her grandkids. They taught me all sorts of trick and kept me in a non-typical dwarven shape, etc... Spending my childhood through young adult hood in the halfing community help shaped me into a more nimble dwarf and this, blah...

You see the point though. With creative thinking I allowed anything. The whole point of the game was to have fun and be creative.

As for the weapons, could we consider a walking stiff a staff? If so the gnome can have a staff, but it would just cause less damage, etc....

 

Why does the complete book of Dwarves introduce a 2 handed dwarven battleaxe if all battle axes are two handed for them?

 

As I say in condemnation of 3e, so shall I say in condemnation of 2e: What the DM can change means less than zero when talking about the system itself.

Because dwarves, typically a smithing race, will naturally make axes better suited to their size, instead of just taking something made by humans that puts them at a disadvantage. But more to the point, why in the world is there a large-size weapon (chain flail) listed on the same page, when small-size creatures could never hope to wield them?

The answer: some dwarves are small, some dwarves are medium. The MM puts the division right at 4 feet, which puts 50% of dwarven males and 70% of dwarven females in the small category. But that leaves 50% of males and 30% of females over 4 feet, making only those characters medium-size. The one place where your height roll finally means something other than for flavor (or confined spaces).

The other races are all firmly within one category. Humans and half-elves are all at least five feet, and even elven females are at least 4' 3" (despite the 5"/13cm difference between the genders). Gnomish males come up to 3' 8" at most, and halfling males almost but not quite break the barrier with 1 out of 64 being exactly 4' tall (still small-size).

So ta-da. Dwarves might not be as bad as that. And to try to make them not as bad, what do you do? You pick dwarven males over dwarven females, because you've got a better chance at being medium-sized and having better choices. Aaaaand the two-dimensionality is staring you right in the face again. It's not a solid push, as you can take disadvantages for RPing reasons (and I frequently do), but I resent even these soft nudges.

 

My guys must've always been tall dwarves.